summary | shortlog | log | commit | commitdiff | tree
raw | patch | inline | side by side (parent: acdeec6)
raw | patch | inline | side by side (parent: acdeec6)
author | Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> | |
Tue, 20 Mar 2007 18:38:34 +0000 (11:38 -0700) | ||
committer | Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> | |
Wed, 21 Mar 2007 05:17:32 +0000 (22:17 -0700) |
When creating a new object, we use "deflate(stream, Z_FINISH)" in a loop
until it no longer returns Z_OK, and then we do "deflateEnd()" to finish
up business.
That should all work, but the fact is, it's not how you're _supposed_ to
use the zlib return values properly:
- deflate() should never return Z_OK in the first place, except if we
need to increase the output buffer size (which we're not doing, and
should never need to do, since we pre-allocated a buffer that is
supposed to be able to hold the output in full). So the "while()" loop
was incorrect: Z_OK doesn't actually mean "ok, continue", it means "ok,
allocate more memory for me and continue"!
- if we got an error return, we would consider it to be end-of-stream,
but it could be some internal zlib error. In short, we should check
for Z_STREAM_END explicitly, since that's the only valid return value
anyway for the Z_FINISH case.
- we never checked deflateEnd() return codes at all.
Now, admittedly, none of these issues should ever happen, unless there is
some internal bug in zlib. So this patch should make zero difference, but
it seems to be the right thing to do.
We should probablybe anal and check the return value of "deflateInit()"
too!
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
until it no longer returns Z_OK, and then we do "deflateEnd()" to finish
up business.
That should all work, but the fact is, it's not how you're _supposed_ to
use the zlib return values properly:
- deflate() should never return Z_OK in the first place, except if we
need to increase the output buffer size (which we're not doing, and
should never need to do, since we pre-allocated a buffer that is
supposed to be able to hold the output in full). So the "while()" loop
was incorrect: Z_OK doesn't actually mean "ok, continue", it means "ok,
allocate more memory for me and continue"!
- if we got an error return, we would consider it to be end-of-stream,
but it could be some internal zlib error. In short, we should check
for Z_STREAM_END explicitly, since that's the only valid return value
anyway for the Z_FINISH case.
- we never checked deflateEnd() return codes at all.
Now, admittedly, none of these issues should ever happen, unless there is
some internal bug in zlib. So this patch should make zero difference, but
it seems to be the right thing to do.
We should probablybe anal and check the return value of "deflateInit()"
too!
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
sha1_file.c | patch | blob | history |
diff --git a/sha1_file.c b/sha1_file.c
index 64d9813a9227b5b5daa4aae1a3366ef85cd1c2a5..940bab561254842fd50c59cf9284a8c878cb3fd8 100644 (file)
--- a/sha1_file.c
+++ b/sha1_file.c
int write_sha1_file(void *buf, unsigned long len, const char *type, unsigned char *returnsha1)
{
- int size;
+ int size, ret;
unsigned char *compressed;
z_stream stream;
unsigned char sha1[20];
@@ -2007,9 +2007,14 @@ int write_sha1_file(void *buf, unsigned long len, const char *type, unsigned cha
/* Then the data itself.. */
stream.next_in = buf;
stream.avail_in = len;
- while (deflate(&stream, Z_FINISH) == Z_OK)
- /* nothing */;
- deflateEnd(&stream);
+ ret = deflate(&stream, Z_FINISH);
+ if (ret != Z_STREAM_END)
+ die("unable to deflate new object %s (%d)", sha1_to_hex(sha1), ret);
+
+ ret = deflateEnd(&stream);
+ if (ret != Z_OK)
+ die("deflateEnd on object %s failed (%d)", sha1_to_hex(sha1), ret);
+
size = stream.total_out;
if (write_buffer(fd, compressed, size) < 0)